Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1
Office of Technology Assessment, 1987, p. 27
The Julie Toehm Saga at Wal-Mart Stores Inc
Employees are generally of the opinion that although various kinds of software provide the
opportunity to acquire extensive amounts of information about an individual, the relevance of
that information to the day to day operations of the business is inconsequential.
Since there is little to no regulation or legislation that prohibits employers from gathering
information, they often collect as much information as they can gather. Without the knowledge of
what information is being acquired it is hard for the employees to estimate how much their
privacy is being invaded.
Disadvantages
-----------------
Surveillance carries many costs associated with its implementation. The equipment needed,
installation, upkeep, and monitoring proves to be very costly for many companies.
Stressful working conditions related to monitoring include a heavy workload, repetitive tasks,
social isolation, fear of job loss, and a lack of job involvement and personal control.
Monitoring is intrusive and the potential for abuse exists. For example, computer databases,
telephone and video monitoring, active badges, and other monitoring techniques make the
private lives of workers easier to delve into without detection.
Technology has made it easy to gather private information and to potentially use it against the
employee. For example, information can be used to discriminate against employees by using it
2
"You've Got Inappropriate Mail", www.helium.com
The Julie Toehm Saga at Wal-Mart Stores Inc
"to identify or harass whistleblowers, union organizers, or other dissidents within a firm or
agency" .3
These monitoring systems also tend to reduce job satisfaction, and they might also discourage
employees from focusing on aspects of the job the monitoring doesn’t measure.
3
U.S. Congress, 1987, p. 2
The Julie Toehm Saga at Wal-Mart Stores Inc
We must today remember that we leave behind a massive amount of information about ourselves,
advertently or inadvertently, everytime we use the internet – be it for information gathering,
participating in some form of financial e-transaction, or just indulging in e-mailing. We leave a
trail behind each time we log on – a trail that can be followed by anyone with the right resources.
In this highly paranoid, suspicious, information overloaded, and above all, overly connected
world we live and operate in, it does not appear very consequential that your employer has
access to your e-mails.
If you know it is going to happen, you could always take steps to protect yourself without
spending too much energy on worrying about the ethics.
To combat the issues arising out of all-pervasive technology, clear ethics policy and training are
necessary. With proper instruction and training, employees can learn that ethical reasoning means
doing what is morally right, even in the face of powerful selfish desires.
The Julie Toehm Saga at Wal-Mart Stores Inc
18 B. Do you agree with Roehm and some analysts that a cultural conflict and office politics
were responsible for Roehm’s exit from Wal-Mart? Give reasons to support your answers.
For a variety of marketing and other reasons, Wal-Mart was, in 2005-6, no longer the growth
engine it once was. The company was searching for a new marketing strategy as part of an
makeover exercise. That strategy involved moving away from its existing "everyday low pricing"
stand to attracting a wider audience among the middle class.
To help with the turnaround, Wal-Mart hired Julie Roehm in Feb 2006. Julie Roehm then had a
successful career in Detroit as a marketer of vehicles. She had a growing reputation as a ‘Star’
and was famous for constantly pushing the envelope in advertising. This was just what Wal-Mart
needed to help in achieving a image changeover.
Or so they thought. By December 2006 Wal-Mart had turned its back on her. Julie Roehm was
fired as Senior Vice President of Marketing Communications, just 10 months after being
recruited by Wal-Mart. Here are some reasons why:
While operationally Wal-Mart is very forward looking and bold (the company has a log list of
firsts to its credit, particularly in adapting technology to improve its supply-chain processes), it’s
not known to be very bold when it comes to projecting a radical image. The company also has a
well known history of laying down a strict code-of-conduct for its employees – a code that exists
outside the realm of official work and governs many aspects of the employees’ lives that
normally most other companies would leave well enough alone.
Cultural differences between the employer and employee were evident right through her stint at
Wal-Mart. While new employees traditionally spend the first quarter or so keeping a low profile
and ‘fitting in’, that was just not Julie Roehm’s style. In her own words “I get overly excited, I
wanted to hit the ground running. Go, go, go”.4 Keeping in line with the culture at Wal-Mart, no
one even advised her to keep a low profile. While her own staff did try to tell her “…you
shouldn't be doing things like planning skits for the annual meeting…”, her superiors never gave
her any indication that she was not on track. Outwardly everything was fine, while the wound
continued to fester inside.
Cultural compatibility is critical for success. The other aspect of this issue here is that Julie
Roehm was blissfully unaware of Wal-Mart’s reputation as a very conservative company. How
can a senior executive with her kind of experience not conduct complete research on a potential
employer before taking the big leap? There are two possible explanations for this – 1) She was
blinded by the compensation package on offer, while also looking at the opportunity as a means
to further strengthen her resume by adding the experience of a complete new vertical; 2) She
overestimated her abilities to be a genuine ‘change agent’ while completely overlooking the fact
that an organisation as deeply entrenched in conservatism as Wal-Mart is unlikely to change very
rapidly.
It seems in hindsight that Julie Roehm was the only one who didn’t see it coming.
One of the responses that Wal-Mart made in response to certain demands Julie Roehm made after
being dismissed was that “…she is free to collect a step ladder and paint supplies left behind….”.
This statement clearly reflects that Wal-Mart wasn’t particularly amused to see Julie painting her
4
www.businessweek.com
The Julie Toehm Saga at Wal-Mart Stores Inc
office walls soon after she moved into the Arkansas headquarters of the company. A company
that is so easily made uncomfortable by such seemingly innocuous moves, is obviously not a
right candidate for large scale image shift.
Roehm’s relationship with here boss Fleming, who was the head of marketing, gives some clues
about the politics at work which ultimately became the bane of her existence at Wal-Mart. In the
ongoing territorial war between Quinn, who was her contemporary in the marketing department,
and Roehm, Fleming seemed much inclined to continuously favour Quinn. The fact that Fleming
kept their roles fuzzy and overlapping, didn’t seem to help Roehm’s case at all. Roehm’s role
was being constantly marginalised in favour of Quinn.
Roehm also displayed an astounding sense of naiveté when she failed to constantly attend the
Friday morning meets called by Chief Executive Lee Scott, on the mistaken ideology that she
was too busy doing her work to bother about niceties. Her apparently irrational moves only
succeeded in giving the impression that she was not a team player.
Cultural incompatibility between Roehm and her employer was evident from the way they
approached common issues. Even though Roehm was hired based on her strength as a ‘change
agent’, the company was unwilling to change its deep set ways that were essentially the legacy of
Sam Walton. The strong influence that the merchandising department exercised on all major
decisions within the company, didn’t leave much space for the marketing department to
maneuver. Wal-Mart’s inherent resistance to change is amply illustrated by the case of the
nightgown advertisement, that was created under Roehm’s authority, and aired during the pre-
Christmas shopping season. Though Wal-Mart liked it well enough initially, they subsequently
withdrew the ad just on the basis of a handful of adverse reactions from television viewers.
According to a NY Times story of 9th Dec 2006, in an interview, John Fleming, the Chief
Marketing Officer at Wal-Mart, said the company had indeed begun to backtrack from sleeker
advertising that emphasized style over price. Customer research, he said, showed that, rich or
poor, Wal-Mart customers “care about unbeatable prices.” “I don’t think Wal-Mart advertising is
ever going to be edgy,” he said. “I do not think that fits our brand. Our brand is about saving
people money.”5 Another example of why it is certain Wal-Mart was never ready for a change –
with or without a change agent.
According to Sergio Zyman, Coca-Cola's former CMO, “…Wal-Mart wanted to wear a pair of
high heels, and Julie was high heels. When they put on the high heels, they said, “No, this is too
difficult to me, my feet hurt”. Then the high heels became the problem.”6
If Roehm is being accused of unethical behaviour, or behaviour contrary to company guidelines,
what about Wal-Mart’ own behaviour in gathering evidence against her? Wal-Mart coerced,
pressurised and nearly blackmailed Womack’s wife to produce the damning evidence against
Roehm. Surely it can not be part of Wal-Mart’s code of conduct to interfere in employees’
personal lives to fulfill their own corporate objectives.
Julie Roehm’s own burning ambition was a contributing factor to her eventual downfall at Wal-
Mart. She was essentially a middle-manager trying to achieve stardom. She had not been at Wal-
Mart long enough to justify the high profile she was starting to create for herself. Her decision to
appear at Draft/FCB’s new-business presentation and the agency’s dinner at Nobu was a clear
5
www.adrants.com
6
Behind the Rebranding Campaign of Wal-Mart’s Scarlet Woman, By Danielle Sacks; www.fastcompany.com
The Julie Toehm Saga at Wal-Mart Stores Inc
case of bad judgment. Not only did this contravene Wal-Mart’s strict entertainment policy, it’s
also an unethical thing to do in the middle of an agency review process.
In the final reckoning, the allegations against Roehm of accepting gratuities from potential
vendors and having an intimate relationship with a co-worker, were certainly of a minor nature
when measured against the backdrop of corporate America. What did her in was – she just didn’t
fit in.
While Julie Roehm suffered immense financial losses and loss of opportunities out of her lawsuit
against Wal-Mart, the company would also have paid some price for its lack of judgment. Wal-
Mart would probably not be able to buy the services of another ‘change agent’ for a very long
time.
The Julie Toehm Saga at Wal-Mart Stores Inc
References
1. Playing IT Big Brother: when is employee monitoring warranted?,
www.thefreelibrary.com
2. ‘Workplace Privacy’, Electronic Privacy Information Centre, www.epic.org
3. Negotiating Electronic Surveillance in the Workplace: A Study of Collective Agreements
in Canada, Simon Kiss (Queen's University), Simon Kiss (Queen's University); Canadian
Journal of Communication, Vol 30, No 4 (2005)
4. Wal-Mart Spies on Wal-Mart Watch Employees, www.walmartwatch.com
5. Former Wal-Mart Worker Blows Whistle on Company Surveillance Operation, Spying of
Critics; www.democracynow.org
6. Ethical Implications of Employee Monitoring: What Leaders Should Consider; Bahaudin
G. Mujtaba, Nova Southeastern University
7. Employee monitoring: privacy in the workplace? By Crampton, Suzanne M.
Publication: SAM Advanced Management Journal; www.allbusiness.com
8. Employee surveillance, www.yourprivacy.co.uk
9. Roehm Accuses Wal-Mart Brass Of Ethics Lapses, By Gary McWilliams and James
Covert; Wall Street Journal May 26th, 2007
11. My Year At Wal-Mart; How marketing whiz Julie Roehm suffered a spectacular fall in 10
short months; www.businessweek.com